Post by tacsear on Jul 15, 2017 12:31:15 GMT

Well since he doesn't believe Wardens are necessary to defeat the blight it is understandable for him to try defeating any opposition. It's really stupid though for him to think that in the first place

Post by Sifr on Jul 17, 2017 1:22:22 GMT

Well since he doesn't believe Wardens are necessary to defeat the blight it is understandable for him to try defeating any opposition. It's really stupid though for him to think that in the first place

While we know that Loghain's mistrust of the Wardens is unfounded, it's not hard to see why he came to that conclusion.The Wardens claim they are the only ones that can defeat the Blight, but refuse to provide any explanation how they do this.

From Loghain's point of view, they could be nothing more than an order of charlatans and snake-oil salesman, taking advantage of people's fear of the Blight to gain political power for centuries. Alternately, they do have some secret method of defeating the Blight, but they refuse to tell anyone because they want to keep their monopoly on this information. Neither option would make them particularly trustworthy.Despite their claims of neutrality, the Wardens have already attempted to carry out one coup d'etat against Ferelden in the past.

From Loghain's point of view, what's to stop another Warden-Commander like Sophia Dryden deciding that they don't like the current monarch and attempting to force a regime change? It seems that many historical records from that time were lost in either the civil war or succession crisis following Arland's death, so most people aren't aware of the reasons why the Wardens fought against the crown. As history is written by the winners and Arland is suggested to have been a tyrant, most people would have assumed the Wardens deserved their exile.

(For example, a Cousland Warden has unique dialogue with Levi noting that Dryden is "a black name" in Ferelden, yet later is surprised to learn that not only was an Cousland ancestor part of the conspiracy against Arland, but was beheaded and their head presented on a plate to other nobles as a warning. This shows some of how the "official" history was rewritten and suppressed over the centuries.)The Wardens are legendary heroes who've gone down in history, precisely what Cailan wishes to be.

From Loghain's point of view, what's to stop the Warden's from playing on Cailan's fascination with "glory and legends" and desire to be a Warrior-King like Maric? He's wary of putting so much trust in them and even voices these sentiments during the war council, which Cailan dismisses as "conspiracy theories".The Wardens have convinced the King to allow them to bring reinforcements from Orlais, along with a contingent of Chevaliers.

From Loghain's point of view, if the Orlesians were planning to launch another invasion, this would be the perfect time to do so. The Wardens might be using the fear of a Blight to trick a gullible King into letting an army of Wardens and Chevaliers into the country with open arms. Ostagar is right in the arse-end of nowhere, so an Orlesian invasion would have very little opposition while the entire Ferelden army is camped in the south.

Loghain's problem is that his extreme paranoia about the Orlesians has warped his thinking, so that anything even remotely connected to Orlais is to be met with fear and suspicion. When Maric rescinded the Warden's exile, most of the Wardens who transferred to Ferelden probably came from Orlais, so Loghain would probably have been fearful that they might either be sleeper agents or have divided loyalties.

A similar thing had already happened in "The Calling", where the Orlesian First Enchanter Remille and Templars loyal to him had attempted to take Maric hostage to sell to the Emperor, only to be thwarted when Loghain arrived with Fereldan army. After that incident, Loghain would be naturally suspicious of any Orlesians (or anyone formerly associated with Orlais) in high-level positions of power.

Post by tacsear on Jul 17, 2017 22:28:39 GMT

Well since he doesn't believe Wardens are necessary to defeat the blight it is understandable for him to try defeating any opposition. It's really stupid though for him to think that in the first place

While we know that Loghain's mistrust of the Wardens is unfounded, it's not hard to see why he came to that conclusion.The Wardens claim they are the only ones that can defeat the Blight, but refuse to provide any explanation how they do this.

From Loghain's point of view, they could be nothing more than an order of charlatans and snake-oil salesman, taking advantage of people's fear of the Blight to gain political power for centuries. Alternately, they do have some secret method of defeating the Blight, but they refuse to tell anyone because they want to keep their monopoly on this information. Neither option would make them particularly trustworthy.Despite their claims of neutrality, the Wardens have already attempted to carry out one coup d'etat against Ferelden in the past.

From Loghain's point of view, what's to stop another Warden-Commander like Sophia Dryden deciding that they don't like the current monarch and attempting to force a regime change? It seems that many historical records from that time were lost in either the civil war or succession crisis following Arland's death, so most people aren't aware of the reasons why the Wardens fought against the crown. As history is written by the winners and Arland is suggested to have been a tyrant, most people would have assumed the Wardens deserved their exile.

(For example, a Cousland Warden has unique dialogue with Levi noting that Dryden is "a black name" in Ferelden, yet later is surprised to learn that not only was an Cousland ancestor part of the conspiracy against Arland, but was beheaded and their head presented on a plate to other nobles as a warning. This shows some of how the "official" history was rewritten and suppressed over the centuries.)The Wardens are legendary heroes who've gone down in history, precisely what Cailan wishes to be.

From Loghain's point of view, what's to stop the Warden's from playing on Cailan's fascination with "glory and legends" and desire to be a Warrior-King like Maric? He's wary of putting so much trust in them and even voices these sentiments during the war council, which Cailan dismisses as "conspiracy theories".The Wardens have convinced the King to allow them to bring reinforcements from Orlais, along with a contingent of Chevaliers.

From Loghain's point of view, if the Orlesians were planning to launch another invasion, this would be the perfect time to do so. The Wardens might be using the fear of a Blight to trick a gullible King into letting an army of Wardens and Chevaliers into the country with open arms. Ostagar is right in the arse-end of nowhere, so an Orlesian invasion would have very little opposition while the entire Ferelden army is camped in the south.

Loghain's problem is that his extreme paranoia about the Orlesians has warped his thinking, so that anything even remotely connected to Orlais is to be met with fear and suspicion. When Maric rescinded the Warden's exile, most of the Wardens who transferred to Ferelden probably came from Orlais, so Loghain would probably have been fearful that they might either be sleeper agents or have divided loyalties.

A similar thing had already happened in "The Calling", where the Orlesian First Enchanter Remille and Templars loyal to him had attempted to take Maric hostage to sell to the Emperor, only to be thwarted when Loghain arrived with Fereldan army. After that incident, Loghain would be naturally suspicious of any Orlesians (or anyone formerly associated with Orlais) in high-level positions of power.

Yes I've thought about all that and it is understandable how he come to that conclusion, but it still is a lot to put at steak just because of your suspicions

Post by Sifr on Jul 19, 2017 8:31:57 GMT

Yes I've thought about all that and it is understandable how he come to that conclusion, but it still is a lot to put at steak just because of your suspicions

Definitely, something that Loghain recognises by Inquisition.

He screwed up by letting his paranoia and hatred of the Orlesians blind him to the reality of the situation. Didn't help that he may have bought somewhat into his hype that "the Hero of River Dane" who kick out the Orlesians, could easily defeat the Blight all by himself.

I don't think he expected the Darkspawn to prove that difficult of an enemy or the nobles to not rally around him. Probably explains the goblet in his hand and the large bottle of wine on the table, during the cutscene where Howe proposes sending the Crows after the Wardens.

I suspect that Loghain buckled under the pressure following Ostagar and kept rationalising his actions (before and after) as being necessary to protect Ferelden, if only to convince himself he was doing the right thing?

Post by adonniel on Aug 10, 2017 2:51:04 GMT

I thank Origins for creating this brilliant and deeply controversial character whom I love analysing and picking to the bone. Yet, in my books still a villain.

When I played my first game as a novice Warden, I spent majority of it anticipating how I'll run my sword through Loghain eventually the way I do with Howe. Yet, at the crucial moment the unexpected happened and the great general surrendered. Because I was playing a good guy (who didn't know what might happen to Alistair) who was willing to give everyone a chance at redemption, I've stalled my sword and through it gained an understanding of a highly complex man because once you recruit him and enter the camp to speak with Loghain you will find it difficult to hate him.

On a side note, I find it fascinating how the mabari in our party finds ways to uncover humanity of the 'evil' characters. It becomes so much harder to dislike someone who treats animals with such kindness.

My luck based rogue with a level four coercion is a snotty noob in comparison to Loghain when it comes to persuasion. Loghain can talk complete hogwash and make it believable. Once you begin asking him about his reasons, you realise there was strong rationale driving his actions - immoral in execution but no less powerful.

Yet - immoral it is. One of the biggest lies that angers me about it was the battle of Ostagar itself. Loghain is attempting to present his retreat as a spontaneous decision made in battle. It was not. Just like he had poisoned Eamon in advance, Loghain went into battle never intending to engage the enemy. This was a cold blooded, planned in advance Regicide, which he said he would do again. Did he enjoy killing Cailan? No. But, he viewed this murder as one of the hard choices necessary to 'save Ferelden' in his build up delusions.

Sometimes good intentions lead to Hell? Well sometimes accidental good comes out of the corrupt intentions - which most assuredly doesn't make the person who made that decision a good human being. Do I doubt that an army he had preserved became instrumental later on? Not at all. But the reason it had gotten preserved came at the cost of a massacre and emerged out of the corrupt planning, not out of a sudden brilliant tactical move as Loghain is presenting it to be.

His following actions to support his crumbling power kept adding more and more to his crimes. Our Warden spends months, even years fixing all his wrong doings - Eamon, the circle of magi and Templars too, slavery. Just one of those crimes for anyone is pretty much enough to earn an execution.

I find it hugely symbolic that Loghain used to have a mabari and then the poor hound was literally sacrificed. These hounds are perceived as granting honourable qualities to the owners. This represents what happens to his morality - at first heroic and then wounded so badly that it doesn't survive.

Does Loghain have admirable qualities? Oh yes. So many. Was he in the past a hero of Ferelden? Yes. He WAS. But - I will not hail him a hero after Ostagar or weave excuses for his actions. Whether he saves a part of the army or not - after Ostagar he becomes a traitor and a murderer because he was instrumental in devising a battle strategy heavily dependant on him without intending to engage the enemy.

This is his quote if your Warden asks Loghain about 'A last grab for glory' when Loghain proposes to take out the Archdemon.

"Glory? No... but forgiveness... perhaps."

I don't hate Loghain. I forgive him. But, I don't think he deserves a big heroic statue in his honour. I don't think his crimes should become ambiguous in the textbooks and lost in history with just the good deeds remaining. Those sins were too severe and too many.

Post by phoray on Aug 30, 2017 2:19:54 GMT

When Warden comes to help her because she'd asked her to, she cries that she is being abducted and forces Sir K to fight the Warden. Sir K is a lady that objects to Loghain's betrayal to start with. Actually, the name is spelled... Cauthrien, lol.

You kill Ser Cauthrien instead of surrendering? You monster!

She defends everything Loghain did and calls you trash she intends to slay if you skip the persuade option outside the Landsmeet. Which tells me everything I need to know about her and also tells me Loghain's statements about not knowing are utter lies.

She can rot with her little Loghain crush next to Loghain's corpse.

Let's keep the classes and add a dual protagonist, eh?We want to out clever Solas, not out last his stupidity. #DA42020

Post by adonniel on Aug 30, 2017 19:48:37 GMT

She defends everything Loghain did and calls you trash she intends to slay if you skip the persuade option outside the Landsmeet. Which tells me everything I need to know about her and also tells me Loghain's statements about not knowing are utter lies.

She can rot with her little Loghain crush next to Loghain's corpse.

[br

I take no pleasure in killing Loghain, satisfaction at must do at most. Something I can't claim about the racist even by DA standards, Loghain parroting mindless woman.

Post by Iddy on Sept 6, 2017 17:34:36 GMT

You know what I find odd? During a certain conversation Wynne starts with you in Broken Circle, she tells you that Loghain is a strategist and must've known that the darkspawn would overwhelm them. So... if she is aware that it was a lost battle from the beginning, why does she berate him for "abandoning" the king and the army?

Post by carefull on Sept 6, 2017 21:02:21 GMT

She defends everything Loghain did and calls you trash she intends to slay if you skip the persuade option outside the Landsmeet. Which tells me everything I need to know about her and also tells me Loghain's statements about not knowing are utter lies.

She can rot with her little Loghain crush next to Loghain's corpse.

Heh, I am a simple person, and I don't read EU, so I liked both Ser C, and King C. And Alistair for that matter. Loghain... not really.

Post by Mark7 on Sept 13, 2017 15:51:52 GMT

Except the game shows that Anora is being pathologically incapable to be anyone's partner and keep faith. She betrays/berates every single person she is associated with and who had helped her and breaks every promise she'd made. Her father, her husband, Sir K, the Warden (twice) and Alistair. She is traitorous by nature.

This post is filled with misinformation:

Anora is capable to be a good partner and in fact her marriage with Cailan was interrupted by his death not by any other reason.

She never betrayed Loghain,so can't understand of whom you're coming from,but it was the other way around,of Loghain which ordered her imprisonment without any reason.

She doesn't betray the warden at Howe Estate but is the Warden who may be dumb enough to reveal to SR Cauthrien that she is there with them after her request to keep that as a secret for her safety.

Same for the Landsmeet if Warden outright stated that they wanted her help to kill her father.

Post by secretrare on Sept 13, 2017 16:07:58 GMT

One of the biggest lies that angers me about it was the battle of Ostagar itself. Loghain is attempting to present his retreat as a spontaneous decision made in battle. It was not. Just like he had poisoned Eamon in advance, Loghain went into battle never intending to engage the enemy. This was a cold blooded, planned in advance Regicide, which he said he would do again. Did he enjoy killing Cailan? No. But, he viewed this murder as one of the hard choices necessary to 'save Ferelden' in his build up delusions.

Sometimes good intentions lead to Hell? Well sometimes accidental good comes out of the corrupt intentions - which most assuredly doesn't make the person who made that decision a good human being. Do I doubt that an army he had preserved became instrumental later on? Not at all. But the reason it had gotten preserved came at the cost of a massacre and emerged out of the corrupt planning, not out of a sudden brilliant tactical move as Loghain is presenting it to be.

I'm pretty sure the writers confirmed that Loghain never planned the death of Cailan,since he had no idea how many Darkspawns would have been at Ostagar,so that's a retreat with no grand scheme planned in advance,and Eamon was poisoned after Ostagar,not before.

Post by oyabun on Sept 13, 2017 16:19:19 GMT

Yes I've thought about all that and it is understandable how he come to that conclusion, but it still is a lot to put at steak just because of your suspicions

Definitely, something that Loghain recognises by Inquisition.

He screwed up by letting his paranoia and hatred of the Orlesians blind him to the reality of the situation.

We can't foreknowledge the future of differents course of actions, therefore any judgment about Loghain's actions towards the Orlesians in DAO can't really be safely judged.In short if we presume that without Loghain (or with a different Loghain in behaviour)things would have gone better we have no way to prove that hypotesis.Imagine if Loghain wouldn't have been paranoid about the Orlesians in DAO,and therefore wouldn't have bothered to invest resources to secure the borders during the blight,how can you prove that the Orlesians wouldn't have really invaded the country?Afterall it's exactly what they did in the past...taking advantage of a blight to conquer Nevarra.

There is no way to safely judge his tactical decisione,that's way I say that is more easy to just focus on his crimes which Ostagar is not parte of.

Post by adonniel on Sept 13, 2017 16:51:40 GMT

One of the biggest lies that angers me about it was the battle of Ostagar itself. Loghain is attempting to present his retreat as a spontaneous decision made in battle. It was not. Just like he had poisoned Eamon in advance, Loghain went into battle never intending to engage the enemy. This was a cold blooded, planned in advance Regicide, which he said he would do again. Did he enjoy killing Cailan? No. But, he viewed this murder as one of the hard choices necessary to 'save Ferelden' in his build up delusions.

Sometimes good intentions lead to Hell? Well sometimes accidental good comes out of the corrupt intentions - which most assuredly doesn't make the person who made that decision a good human being. Do I doubt that an army he had preserved became instrumental later on? Not at all. But the reason it had gotten preserved came at the cost of a massacre and emerged out of the corrupt planning, not out of a sudden brilliant tactical move as Loghain is presenting it to be.

I'm pretty sure the writers confirmed that Loghain never planned the death of Cailan,since he had no idea how many Darkspawns would have been at Ostagar,so that's a retreat with no grand scheme planned in advance,and Eamon was poisoned after Ostagar,not before.

There is a direct dialogue option with Teagan who says that Eamon fell ill before Ostagar. It's a fact confirmed in game.

As soon as you play DA2 introduction it says in that nice narrative voice - 'King Cailan died on the field betrayed by his most trusted general.' The lore and the game details and narrative voice uses phrases that call Loghain's act - treachery. In fact if you haven't played DAO and are using the top most default story to start DA2 during character creation it also calls Loghain a traitor.

Post by Sifr on Sept 13, 2017 22:59:30 GMT

We can't foreknowledge the future of differents course of actions, therefore any judgment about Loghain's actions towards the Orlesians in DAO can't really be safely judged.In short if we presume that without Loghain (or with a different Loghain in behaviour)things would have gone better we have no way to prove that hypotesis.Imagine if Loghain wouldn't have been paranoid about the Orlesians in DAO,and therefore wouldn't have bothered to invest resources to secure the borders during the blight,how can you prove that the Orlesians wouldn't have really invaded the country?Afterall it's exactly what they did in the past...taking advantage of a blight to conquer Nevarra.

There is no way to safely judge his tactical decisione,that's way I say that is more easy to just focus on his crimes which Ostagar is not parte of.

Very true, no-one can fault him from not being properly paranoid about the Orlesians using the idea of a Blight as a pretext to invade.

It's not hard to imagine them sending troops in under a banner of peace and then refusing to leave, claiming that they're trying to ensure the stability of Ferelden and the Blight won't spread to the rest of Thedas. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

(Actually justifies some of Teagan's paranoia about the Inquisition during Trespasser. Why does the Inquisition continue to have soldiers occupying forts in Ferelden and Orlais long after the crisis had ended, unless it was never about stopping the crisis at all? As the Inquisitor, we know that's not the case, but they don't.)

But throughout the scenes at Ostagar, we see that Loghain seemed to focus more on imagined enemies around him, than the actual Darkspawn in front of him. He never seems to take the threat of a new Blight very seriously and seemed to think the Wardens were taking advantage of Cailan's naivety. ("This is no true Blight, Anora. Only Cailan's vanity demanded it be so").

I don't blame him from being suspicious of Orlais and their intentions, but he should have held the same due diligence about the Darkspawn. It's not that he ignored or didn't recognise the threat, but severely underestimated it, while being overconfident in his ability to handle it.

Post by Hagoromo on Sept 15, 2017 22:48:43 GMT

I'm pretty sure the writers confirmed that Loghain never planned the death of Cailan,since he had no idea how many Darkspawns would have been at Ostagar,so that's a retreat with no grand scheme planned in advance,and Eamon was poisoned after Ostagar,not before.

There is a direct dialogue option with Teagan who says that Eamon fell ill before Ostagar. It's a fact confirmed in game.

As soon as you play DA2 introduction it says in that nice narrative voice - 'King Cailan died on the field betrayed by his most trusted general.' The lore and the game details and narrative voice uses phrases that call Loghain's act - treachery. In fact if you haven't played DAO and are using the top most default story to start DA2 during character creation it also calls Loghain a traitor.

I don't remember that,if the game says that than it's an errorr in the dialogue of Tegan,because it was Jowan who poisoned Eamon and Jowan was instructed to do that by Loghain when they were in Denerim,so after Ostagar since Jowan was for the whole time in the tower of the Magi and only later was brought in Denerim.Unless Loghain knows how to teleport himself I don't see how he could have been in Ostagar and Denerim at the same time.

I don't remember the narratore of DA2 saying that it was his personal interpretation.